IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL | ||
B e f o r e :
____________________
JON VENABLES
ROBERT THOMPSONFirst Claimant
Second Claimant - and - 1) NEWS GROUP INTERNATIONAL
2) ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD
3) MGN LTD
Defendants -and-
HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND BETWEEN
HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL
-and-
GREATER MANCHESTER NEWSPAPERS LTD
Amicus Curiae
Applicant
Respondent
Mr D. Browne Q.C. and Mr J. Dean (instructed by Cobbetts for the Respondent)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, P.:
The facts.
"From all the evidence provided to me, I have come to the clear conclusion that if the new identity of these claimants became public knowledge it would have disastrous consequences for the claimants, not only from intrusion and harassment but, far more important, the real possibility of serious physical harm and possible death from vengeful members of the public or from the Bulger family. If their new identities were discovered, I am satisfied that neither of them would have any chance of a normal life and that there is a real and strong possibility that their lives would be at risk."
"Bulger killers 'freed today'.
………………………………
Thompson and Venables, both now 18, have undergone parole board examinations this week.
They are being held in institutions where they were awaiting news at lunchtime."
"It is the wish of the Board, as it is the wish of Mr Horrocks, that our response to the Attorney General's letter should be plain, that it should acknowledge that there has been fault and that it should convey to the Attorney General the deep regret which all involved in this unfortunate sequence of events feel at what has occurred.
The Board and Mr Horrocks are extremely concerned at what has occurred and have no wish to avoid the issues which gave rise to the complaint. They therefore acknowledge at the outset that there was a grave error of judgment on the part of a member of the Manchester Evening News' staff, a subsequent failure of its internal controls and an inexcusable breakdown in communication between those who, together, should have prevented publication. They apologise unreservedly for all those errors.
Immediately after the error was pointed out to it, the Manchester Evening News issued a statement that it "would never knowingly contravene a Court injunction." In doing so it expressed the position of the whole Group."
"it considered the injunction sought to be absolutely necessary to give the boys a real chance in what would in any event be very difficult lives."
"The board consider that it was extremely unfortunate that the News Editor failed to discuss the meaning of the word [institutions] which he had chosen with his colleagues and, by not doing so, failed to stimulate the discussion which would inevitably have made it clear that the meaning contended for by the Attorney General might all too readily be taken by readers. That he made the decision on his own, notwithstanding that over the previous two days Mr Horrocks had specifically warned him to take very great care over the "geography" contained in any article, was a gross error of judgment.
…….As to the availability of information about such "institutions", it is accepted that there was a "chance" that publication could have allowed a determined person to discover the addresses of the "institutions" at which the boys were held. That too is regretted."
The Order
"(1)(a)….
(b)….
(c) any information likely to lead to the identification of the past, present or future whereabouts (including all residential or work addresses and telephone numbers) of the said claimants or either of them since the 18th February 1993, save that the establishments at which either of the Claimants has been held on detention during Her Majesty's pleasure may be identified no earlier than 12 months after the date announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department as the date by which both Claimants have been released on licence;
(2)…..
(3)….
PROVIDED THAT nothing in this order shall of itself prevent any person:
a) (i) …
b) (ii) publishing any information already in the public domain at the date of this Order (save as referred to in paragraph 2 hereof); or
c) (iii) ….."
The Questions.
1. Did GMNL have notice of the injunctions?
2. Was the information published 'likely to lead to identification' under paragraph (1(c)?
3. Was the information already in the public domain?
"…a contempt must be established to a degree of conviction appropriate to an offence of a criminal character: re Bramblevale [1970]Ch.128,137."
Notice
'Likely to lead'
Public domain.
"the information, to be confidential, must, I apprehend, apart from contract, have the necessary quality of confidence about it, namely, it must not be something which is public property and public knowledge."
"Information only ceases to be capable of protection as confidential when it is in fact known to a substantial number of people."
"(3) As a general proposition, that which has no character of confidentiality because it has already been communicated to the world, i.e., made generally available to the relevant public, cannot thereafter be subjected to a right of confidentiality: O. Mustad & Son v Dosen (Note) [1964] 1 WLR 109. However, this will not necessarily be the case if the information has previously been disclosed to a limited part of the public. It is a question of degree….."
" ….once it (the information) has entered what is usually called the public domain
(which means no more than that the information in question is so generally accessible that, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as confidential,) then, as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it."